The first part of those conclusions will remind three main facts
studied in that dissertation: the evolution of women's labour (history and
present description), the social evolution (family's evolution), and the
awareness of companies about equality of opportunities for women and men.
Indeed we can not understand the equality of opportunities concept outside
the social and economic context: so the economic evolution, determining
about women's employment, has been studied in great detail in that
dissertation. The social evolution entailed by the econonomic evolution
has also been the subject of a chapter headed " Is the professional
life incomptatible with the family life?" I wish to make it clear
that the personal interpretation which I will develop from the facts
studied in that dissertation involves myself only.

In the second part of those conclusions I will express my point of view
about the employment and equality of opportunities policy leaded by the
Minister Miet Smet. In the last part I will try to outline the bases of a
new thought which could be the subject of an other study and would be
centred on the following question: are women and men cut out to live
together? How can they live both harmoniously?

Equality of opportunities for men and women as part of a process of
evolution

As I have indicated in dans the second chapter headed "Is equality
of opportunities part of a process of evolution?" women's employment
is part of a process of evolution mainly economic. On basis of the general
theory of systems I have been able to demonstrate in that chapter that
women's entrance in the employment market resulted from the successive
imbalances which struck the economy constantly confronted to lacks of
manpower for centuries. Indeed the general theory of systems puts in a
prominent position stresses and imbalances necessary to an (open) system
in order to advance: there is no survival of the system if there is no
evolution, and there is no evolution if there is no imbalance. Moreover a
phenomenon of progressive centralization takes place at the same time that
the system advance: that principle of progressive centralization
represents the principle of progressive individualization. Some parts of
the system will progressively acquire a dominating role and will determine
the behaviour of the system as a whole: that explains the principle of
progressive individualization.

The liberal economy is an open system par excellence seeing that that
kind of economy allows economic exchanges. But that is the economic
evolution which determined women's evolution: I am tempted to say that if
there was no economic development there would no feminism. First we must
remind that our economy was based on agriculture before the XVIIIth
century (so before the French Revolution and the agricultural and
industrial Revolution in Great-Britain). In the XVIIIth century
Great-Britain knows a lack of manpower: it supports every technical
innovation which can take the place of that manpower. That is the begin of
the Agricultural Revolution. That period will also represent a key moment
in the history of capitalism. The agricultural development will involve a
development of the secundary sector: it is here that the phenomenon of
progressive centralization begins. However the lack of manpower persists
although the manpower is indispensable to support the industrial
development. Therefore the British businessmen and government will go on
supporting technical innovations capable of making good the lack of
manpower. Those technical innovations will require a mobilization of
principals: the Industrial Revolution will start. But the industry (and
mainly the textile industry booming from the end of XVIIIth century in
England) will stay confronted to that lack of manpower in spite of the
technical progresses which will take place. From that moment women and
children will make good the lack of manpower in order to support the
industrial development. Manufacturers will be incited to employ women and
children more because of the lack of manpower than the cheapness of the
womanpower. Concurrenthly the Revolution, recommending the nations'
freedom but mainly the economic freedom, takes place in France: indeed it
was more a question of a middle-class revolution than of a revolution in
favour of the masses' social welfare. However liberalism and industrial
development will expand in France more belatedly than in England: that is
why French women will come in the labour market later than English women
(who will be given the vote earlier than French women as if women had to
work first before to may vote).

The industrial sector will expand considerably in France only from the
XIXth century. That development will require a mobilization of principals,
but also a mobilization of manpower. From that moment French women come in
the labour market: they will be numerous to work in the textile
manufacturies like English women. But the development of the secundary
sector will involve the development of service industries: industries will
appeal to womanpower again. Indeed the service industries do not require
an important physical power. In that way men will support the industrial
activity and women will support the development of service industries.
Then the typing pools, exclusively made up by women, will be born in the
XXth century...

But more women will work, more they will free themselves. Working in
the service industries sometimes requires high academic qualifications
(for examples: barrister, doctor, ...): so some middle-class women will
assert women's access to schools and universities. In spite of some
attempts of women's return home women will progress slowly but surely:
they will hold on the labour market and will even work more and more.
After the second war (period marked by the right to vote given to women,
the birth of Social Services and the promulgation of diverses social laws)
women, more numerous on the labour market, will assert "an equal pay
for an equal work". Having an financial independence thanks to the
work they will assert their independence in comparison with man, but also
in comparison with their body: they will assert the depenalization of the
contraception. Woman does not fall pregnant anymore but she chooses to be
it or not. No mastering the fertility implied some riks: nowadays woman
does not depend on those risks anymore.

What about today? The division of labour is always topical. In Belgium
men are still very numerous in the secondary sector: 37 % of Belgian men
are employed in that sector. Those are essentially manual workers: the
rate of male manual workers in the secondary sector comes to 74 %. When we
take all sectors into account we come to a rate of 47 % of Belgian men as
manual workers, although the rate of manual workers comes to 27 % for
women's part. Women mainly work in the service industries: 87 % of women
which work in Belgium are employed in that sector (what does not mean that
the service industries is monopolized by women: indeed 50 % of that
sector's workers are men). 77 % of that sector's women are intellectual
workers. Briefly 82 % of Belgian secondary sector's workers are men, and
50 % of Belgian service industries' workers are women.

Why are Belgian men in the majority in the secondary sector? At first
working in that sector require a physical force (for example: the building
sector). Afterwards the working conditions, and espiacially remunerations,
have stayed satisfactory. Trade unions have contributed to the support of
those relatively satisfactory working conditions: the syndical sphere -
essentially male - has mainly defended men's work until now. Why do
Belgian women work mainly in the service industries? In that sector the
physical force is not required, and remunerations are mainly less high and
working conditions less satisfactory (for examples: trade sector, catering
sector, education, health services). Why are women's remuneration less
high? Is it women's entrance in a trade which involves a degradation of
working conditions, or is it the degradation of working conditions which
involves women's entrance in a trade? Interrogated about that subject,
Adida Vanheerswyngheels, researcher in ULB (Université Libre de
Bruxelles) thinks "that is few of both. Actually when a trade is less
prestigious the profession includes more women. Indeed less prestigious
working conditions are less attractive for men: so the trade appeals to
the womenpower. Men want jobs with good working conditions, so we note
men's leaving and women's entrance in less prestigious professions. We can
draw up this phenomenon to the immigrant's labour" she said. Moreover
the service industries' female workers are mainly intellectual workers.
Would it be their weak physical force which would urge girls to study
more? In France 25 % women at work have obtained a higher diploma after
the baccalauréat (= Ceneral Certificate of Education) against 20 % of men
.

The horizontal segregation of the labour market is consequently
obvious: on the one hand women are in the service industries, and on the
other hand men stay in the majority in the industry. But segregation often
means discriminations and inequalities... Inside the service industries we
note a second segregation: the vertical segregation. Women in the service
industries are mainly office worker seeing that one manager on eight only
is a woman in Belgium. In the secondary sector we also note intellectual
workers (ingeneers, executive, managers)'s minority and manual workers's
majority. So why do I talk about vertical segregation and inequalities in
the service industries? There are as many men as women, that is not a male
sector: so why are there not as many women as men to the top of companies?
It is understandable that executives and managers' minority is male in the
secondary sector (male sector); but that is less understandable in the
service industries (co-educational sector).

Moreover it is more and more difficult to support men's labour in the
secondary sector because of the economic crisis (or rather the
worldwideness = mondialisation?), all the more as men are not ready like
women to accept lower salaries (for women's part we designate low
remunerations as extra salaries). Indeed nearly one man on three lost his
job from 1974 to 1993 in Belgium: in this way more than 550 000
employments have disappeared in the secondary sector. However nearly 700
000 employments (including 506 000 employments holded by women) was
created in the service industries in the same time. Briefly men lose jobs
(industriel sector falling off) and women win some (service industries
booming).

Consequently we note that women's entrance in the labour market has
started with the economic development (and women have stayed on it since
the booming of the service industries). In spite of this mass entrance in
the labour market woman still comes up against many obstacles: women's
salaries less high than men's salaries, they have to take on family
charges alone, ... All those obstacles to the women's professional life
are based on sexual discriminations: woman are less paid because she holds
feminine professions (secretary, teacher, home help, babysitter, ...); she
doesn't have the same opportunities to access to executive or managing
positions than her male colleague because she must take on nearly all
educative and household charges according the society's mentality. Some
men have some difficulties to dissociate "work" and
"sexuality" as if both were indissociable and form a whole. In
this way some men interviewed as part of this dissertation have refered to
biological differences between women and men, sexuality and differences of
amorous behaviour although any question was not asked to them about it.
For example a trade unionist told that "women looks for fondness and
are ready to give up everything (and notably their professional life), to
give up their freedom in order to get this fondness from a man",
although "a man is not ready to give up everything for a woman."
Moreover, according to him, women would be more dependent on their body
than men (a lot of women are nevertheless on the pill...): thereby they
would create their own status (mother's) by their body. On the other hand
men would be less dependent on their body and would need to fulfill
themselves on the outside. A managing director also interviewed as part of
that dissertation reminded that there would always be "differences
which we could never delete (...) Biology exists and we have to take it
into account." According to me we must absolutely dissociate
"work" from "sexuality and "love": associating
both would amount to justify inequalities. Indeed must women accept to be
less paid than men just because they give birth? Can not they access to
management positions just because they have a different sexual and amorous
behaviour than men? We must distinguish the immutable differences from
changeable differences. Men and women will always have a different sexual
and amorous behaviour: so why should we come back to that unceasingly?
Some reality is more complex: some women can have masculine behaviours and
some men can have feminine behaviour (expressing their sensibility and
their emotions for example): but those differences are not always
tolerated in our society. Be that as it may we will never can change the
biological differences. On the other hand women and men's position in the
society, in the labour world constantly evolves: so those differences can
be changed without undermining of the other differences - the immutable
differences. But as I said men have many difficulties to dissociate
"work" and "sexuality", probably because until now
they have always based their identity in the professional sphere and much
less in the private sphere... For their part women need to juggle with the
professional life and the family life every day: so they do not have many
difficulties to dissociate both: no women interviewed as part of that
dissertation talked about biological differences or sexuality.

Let's talk about the obstacles met by women again. The obstacles are
contributory factors in having women moved. More women have met obstacles
more they have called themselves in question: the height of feminism in
sixties and seventies (let's remember "Le Deuxième sexe" from
Simone de Beauvoir) reveals that. In the same time FN's Belgian female
workers asserted an equal pay for an equal work. Briefly in 50 years woman
has called the position of inferiority in which she was for centuries.
When women called themselves in question a phenomenon of individualization
started. That phenomenon of individualization has been expressed by a
recognition of women's rights (right to vote, right to work, right to
master births, ...) but also by a recognition of children's rights
(abolition of children's work, right to be educated, ... Nowadays some
Belgian politician talk about children's right to be minded outside
schooltimetable).

What about the man? For centuries the man had no reasons to call
himself in question: indeed he was in a position of superiority for a long
time. But recognizing women's rights and children's has come to call that
superiority in question. The man has lost his job and has found himself
unemployed becauce of the economic crisis, but he has also lost the
influence which he had over his wife and his children. That position
obviously creates a "ill-being" in man who is not used to call
himself in question (mainly about power...). That cultural change which we
live is more difficult for man seeing that this change signifies for him a
lost of his privileges' part. So how do men react? Arlene Skolnick
(American) discerns 3 reactions:

- the man fleeing: this man is unable to face his family
responsabilities;

- the man getting bogged down in a tenuous machismo, just because he
feels his superiority is calling in question; he is losing power and he is
not controlling many things anymore, so he is behaving macho and he is
taking refuge in traditional values;

- the man fitting in with this change: he is tolerant of women who are
at work and even agrees to share house work and children's upbringing.

Briefly the man who was so powerful in the past is losing his power,
and the woman who was so weak is becoming more powerful. Indeed they are
today more powerful thanks to their independence of their husband and of
their body, but also because women's labour generates economic wealth. As
we said the rise of women's employment results from the development of the
service industries: so women contributes to support the rise of those
industries. Moreover more and more women create their own business.
Companies which are created or managed by women are now experiencing a
stable rise. In United States 75 % of the companies managed ou created by
women stay working in production more than 3 years against 60 % of the
companies managed or created by men. In France companies managed by women
is experiencing a rise superior to the average of companies; those
companies are also experiencing a profitability superior to the average.
Briefly women's labour, as much employees' labour as female entrepreneurs'
labour, contributes to develop economic wealves. Several economists uphold
that idea, like Béatrice Majnoni d'Intignano, professor in Paris, and
Etienne Wasmer, an economist at the European Center for advanced research
in Economics (Université libre de Bruxelles). In a report meant for the
French Prime Minister, Mr Jospin, the Council of economic analysis proves
that women's labour stimulates the growth and the employment . That report
leans on the B. Majnoni d'Intignano's economic analyses which show that
more women work, more the unemployment falls (the countries where
unemployment is high are also those where the rate of women at work is
weak). Moreover that report reveals that women (excepted the least
qualified women) earn on average more than they need to provide for their
new needs: baby-sitting, etc. As a wage earner women consume products
which they could not afford if they did not work. That new consumption is
very turned torwards services and is in favour of the employment. Indeed
tasks are not very mechanizable: so when the demand rises the employment
also rises. Moreover B. Majnoni d'Intignano shows that women are more
inclined to make children's number which they want when they conciliate
career and children. The states which have a less weak birthrate are those
where the family policy stresses the use of structures of childcare (those
structures are besides considered by François de Singly, a French
sociologist, like "birthsupports"). Children represent an
important factor in a society's development, "because their number et
the quality of thei education determine the demographic balance and the
social cohesion long-range" reminds B. Majnoni d'Intignano. As for
Etienne Wasmer (Université Libre de Bruxelles) he also reaffirms that
"women's integration in the labour market create wealth and induce
other employments" , sending them back at home would be an
"economic aberration" and it would come to forget
"l'irreversibility of social evolution."

But how do men have to react facing that evolution? Do they have to be
in the war with women to win back their power? We do not have to answer
that question. The essential question is, as said A. Skolnick: how will
men (and institutions) fit in with that change, that mutation? As the
general theory of systems indicates the man can be considered like a
system in himself. A system must make progress in order to survive. In
order to make progress the system must experience some imbalances. The man
is now experiencing an imbalance: there is an imbalance between what the
man is for centuries (and what he is still today) and what the woman has
become. So now it is for him to restore the balance. How would he do it?
In sending women back at home? Is such a solution thinkable? As we have
seen it is not thinkable for several economists. Moreover that would not
induce the man to change (so to take progress) because that would support
his dominating, but old-fashioned because century-old position. According
to me the man is induced to define himself again, to redefine his identity
and to fit the one with social changes. As opinion polls show women would
like their husband to share more housework and children's upbringing. But
would the man less "male" because he does the dishes and takes
care of the baby? Picture to yourself male washer-up in restaurants, all
those men working in the catering, cooking, doing the dishes and cleaning
on the ground: are those men less "male" because they exercise
those activities? Picture to yourself the men who take care of their body
and their clothes, and put on perfume? In Japan for example "young
men think that they have to take care of their appearance, put nice
clothes and attract attention": that is what we could read in a
Japanese monthly magazine, exclusively established for the male fashion .
"That does not signify that they feminize themselves. They just
prefer to go to a beauty salon than to a barber." So does that
signify that the men who are anxious about their beauty and do the dishes
are less "male"? Not the least in the world, because they
"appropiate" some so-called feminine activities (doing the
dishes, going to a beauty salon) in bringing a masculin stroke to it: men
do not the dishes in the same way than women, and they do not use the same
cosmetics. In this way looking after children does not mean becoming a
maternal assistant. Besides biological differences do not determine who
has to wash the dishes, who may look attractive, who has to look after
children. Women and men can exercise those activities in bringing their
own differences to it. According to me this is the idea which men should
think about: that is a track which could lead them to a "new"
identity. But feminists, or even women, do not have to dictate to men what
they have to become: feminists did not ask men what they had to become
when they wanted to change. They changed themselves: so now it is up to
men to be responsible in their turn. Some men already do it uninhibited:
men from the "Stuts" club for example, who have given all up for
their wife's professional career, or profeminists men, who are calling the
masculin identity (builded on domination and violence) in question.

But what is the companies' reactions facing those changes? Does it
change itself in order to fit in with that new environment? The company
can also be considered like a open system which is unceasingly induced to
fit in with in order to stay competitive on the market. It would be
surprising if it is going on staying impermeable to those cultural
changes. At first I discern three essential reasons which should urge the
companies on integrate equal opportunities for women and men into their
human resources management (what lets them to fit in with those changes):

- at first the labour segregation, as much horizontal as vertical,
prevents the mobility of the manpower. But that mobility will be essential
in the years to come: the Belgian population is ageing and the companies
may be confronted again with a shortage of manpower (and white, +/- 30
year-old and middle-class);

- then the company will have to cope with a more and more important and
qualified womanpower's suply: the companies will not even induced to fit
jobs to a manpower anymore, they will also induced to fit it to a
increasing and more qualified womanpower's aspirations. In this way seeing
that the rate of the development of women's employment in United States
the womanpower will be equivalent to the manpower from the next century;

- lastly markets are feminizing themselves as much as manpower: the
company's staff needs to be the clientele's reflection. In order to fit
the business communication to a more and more various market the staff
also needs to be various.

Two concepts enable to integrate the equal opportunity for women and
men into the human resources management: the mainstreaming which takes
shape of positive actions, and the ideology of the diversity which takes
shape of programmes of diversity management. Positive actions contribute
to "unpartition off" activities sectors (to delete the
horizontal and vertical segregation), while the diversity management
enables to make up a staff as various as the market. In all cases both
concepts (mainstreaming and diversity management) are tools for a better
staff motivation.

It becomes very important to make Belgian companies sensitive to the
equal opportunity for women and men because:

- on the one hand the companies are unaware of positive actions and
programmes of diversity management according to what I have learnt from
that study;

- on the other hand women's evolution is irreversible: that evolution
has taken place for a long time and it has induced deep changes.

Miet Smet was the Employment, Labour and Equal Opportunity Secretary
from ... until June 1999. In 1989 and on social partner's request she set
up a cell in charg of leading positive actions in order to delete
inequalities between men and women in companies. For some people setting
up such a cell is a "hypocrisy": that is the word which Adida
Vanheerswynghels, researcher at ULB (Universtié Libre de Bruxelles) used
to term positive actions when she was interviewing as part of that study.
Why? At first because the means released for leading such actions were
"ridiculous" in comparison with what had to be done, as Annie
Cornet, lecturer at the University of Liège, said. But mainly because
Miet Smet developped measures completely discriminatory and moving away
women from the equality. Indeed in 1998 Miet Smet took new action to urge
workers on suspending their career. But that measure has mainly concerned
women: 85 % of workers suspending their career are women in Belgium. Such
as it is defined in the law the measure does not urge men on suspending
their career as much as women. When one member of the family needs to
suspend the professional career in order to cope with children that is
often the wife (because it comes back to the mother to cope more with
children, but mainly because she is payed less than her husband). But
employeers are very anxious about the staff absenteeism. For that reason
according to Danièle Meulders (Université Libre de Bruxelles) they
always prefer to employ men. So suspending the professional career is not
in favour of women but does not suit companies anymore.

Then Miet Smet's policy induced the restructuration and the refinancing
of Equipments and Collective Services Funds (FESC: Fonds des Equipements
et des Services Collectifs), an funds which finances and organizes day
nurseries in Belgium. Many Belgian women thought that services of
childcare (during and after the period) would considerably have been
improved with women's mass entrance in the labour market. But "on ten
years nothing has changed" said a Human Resources Manager from an
important company of supermarkets, although the rate of women's activity
has unceasingly increased. Briefly Miet Smet developped incitements to
suspend the career but certainly not the network of day nurseries,
although that sector is generating of many jobs according some Belgian and
French studies. Of course the measure for suspending the career has
enabled:

- on the one hand to curb unemployment seeing that a unemployed person
must take the place of the employee who is suspending her career;

- on the other hand to save money on the financing of the FESC: if
women come back at home we must developp less childcare services.

Nevertheless does suspending the professional career resolve the
problem of unskilled women's unemployment? A study from the Belgian
National Council for Employment revealed that the overqualification was
spread in service industries: many jobs suitable to unskilled persons are
holded by overskilled people. Thereby I doubt very much that suspending
the professional career curbs unskilled people's unemployment, all the
more as such unemployed people fit into the work sphere with much
difficulty and make in addition the most unemployed. Would the development
of childcare services howether enable to create jobs for those unskilled
people? According to me developping employment in childcare sector would
create jobs for unskilled women, but it would also support wealves
produced by women working in the service industries or as head of
business. But what did Miet Smet do instead that? She curbed long-time
unemployed women's problem in abolishing unemployment benefit for
long-time unemployed women who were cohabiting with a man. So under Miet
Smet's government cohabiting with a man became an offence and signified
the interruption of the payment of unemployment benefit.

Are men and women made for living together?

Humanity always runs on a binary way. During ancient Greek civilization
Platon discerned the body and the mind; Pascal, the calculating machine's
inventor, brought the infinitely small and the infinitely big to the fore
in a "Thinking" of him. A very long time after computers running
with binary numbers were born. We meet that binary reality every day:
don't we talk about positive current and negative current in electricity?
So that binary reality has always been a part of our life.

Man has always been aware of it but has always denied that reality, the
difference which there could be between two elements. So he wondered which
element had to dominate the other. So Platon asserted the supremacy of the
"thinkings' world" on the tangible world (although Aristote
believed that both were complementary seeing that "Nothing in our
intelligence which is not got by our senses"). Later some economists
will assert the supremacy of liberalism although will become the planned
economy's upholders. For a long time white man tried to prove his
supremacy on other men. In all fields (economy, ethnology, politics,
sexuality, ...) there is a rejection of the difference and the pursuit of
an inaccessible ideal because unitary and non-binary: a single, whole and
non-double model must prevail. In denying the difference man tries to
convert the binary model into a single, polished and without
"bumps" model. In order to hit that target man will use this
way: a group's enslavement on an other one. In politics we call that a
dictatorship. Man will use violence in order to institute that
dictatorship. Violence removes a dictatorship in order to institute an
other one. Let's take the example of the French Revolution: the
aristocracy's supremacy was followed by the middle class' supremacy in a
nauseating slaughter. Communist revolutions have not been conducted
without violence either. Communism was maintained in Russia until 1989:
the fall of Berlin wall involved its collapse. Today Russia is ruined:
after having undergone the communist dictatorship it now undergoes the
market dictatorship. What are those dictatorship positive of? Where do it
lead to? This is getting us nowhere... The characteristic of a
dictatorship consists in deleting (social, political, ...) tensions: as a
single model prevails two different models (or systems) can not emerge and
confront with each other, so necessary tensions can not appear in order
that the system can evolue. Briefly a dictatorship, whatever it may be, is
a closed system where exchanges, tensions, unbalances necessary for the
survivance of the system. Besides a dictatorship survives so well that it
is always overthrown by an other one in the end... What about between men
and women? Until now a masculin model has always prevailed although women
have successively asserted their rights. Women did not need to overthrow
the masculin model in order to may vote, work, be on the pill, ... Which
feminists did torture, slaughter, disembowel to get their rights? British
suffragettes broke shop windows, treaded flowers under foot, spitted on
some policemen's face; but they have never killed anyone. Female workers
from the FN in Herstal (Belgium) triumphed over the strike of 1966 thanks
to their tenacity, not thanks to punches. Feminist revolution of
sixties-seventies took even place during a pacifist period (great
opposition to Vietnam war in USA, hippy movement)... "Women
nevertheless took part in the French Revolution and in justifiable
slaughters during that period torwards the nobility." Certainly:
Frenchwomen made the Revolution of 1789 but they were not the leaders of
it (so that Olympe de Gouges, a woman asserting women's rights, was
guillotined in the same time than Louis XVI). That feminine strategy is
effective: women keep their rights seeing that those are part of a long
but durable changing process.

Unfortunately a lot of men do not understand that strategy. They often
imagine that women are like them (always the rejection of the
difference...): when they are feminist women inevitably try to crush men
and to impose the matriarcat on them. Every movement includes extremist
persons (the feminism too) and some people maintain that the matriarcat is
a reality. However it is difficult to talk about a matriarcat when heads
of State and heads of business are mainly men all over the world...

So I think that an interesting thinking can be developped as much in
the sphere of that binary reality as in the sphere of that feminin
changing strategy. The point is not knowing who has to dominate the other
but how to live harmoniously together and how to manage our differences.
Needless to discourse longer on Love, single love (a fairytale for young
girls in order to distract their attention from politics and economy), a
ideal also inaccessible. Jean-Claude Kaufma, a French sociologist, said
about love: "(...) in sexual relationship, in the subjective and
loving exchange, everybody intuitively try to progress in the way of
improbable equation: 1 + 1 = 1. Then that strange trip's passengers
discerns the signs showing to them that they are always distinct. More
(loving) starting impulse weakens (...) more the impulse slows down: 1 + 1
= 2." In a systemic approach 1 + 1 = 3... That confirms that the
fusion of both is impossible: so women and men need to live with their
differences. Tolerance is maybe a pledge of harmony, but certainly of
peace.